Daily cost of invasion of Ukraine is ２.４ trillion yen - Compared with the cost of fighting terrorism.
2022-04-07
Category:Ukraine I'm participating in the ranking.Please click and cheer for me.
Daily cost of invasion of Ukraine
It is estimated that Russia's daily war expenses due to the invasion of Ukraine will exceed ２ trillion yen. This seems to be based on an analysis by Britain, but it is said that Russia's economic sanctions will come into effect and the war will not be able to continue.
The cost of fighting terrorism is
In September ２０２１, a research team at the University of Brown compiled a report that the cost of a series of wars on terrorism would amount to $ ８ trillion (about ８８０ trillion yen) in the ２０ years after the ９/１１ attacks in the United States. .. The breakdown is $ ２.３ trillion (about ２５０ trillion yen) in Afghanistan and Pakistan, $ ２.１ trillion (about ２３０ trillion yen) in Iraq and Syria, and $ ２.２ trillion in medical treatment for veterans. It is (about ２４０ trillion yen). Estimating at ４８０ trillion yen excluding medical expenses for veterans, it will be ６５.７ billion yen per day. If the cost of ２３０ trillion yen in Iraq and Syria is ８ years and ９ months, it will be about ７２０ yen per day. It looks like some digits are different.
Offense and defense by information warfare
Of course, if the number of soldiers put in, the fighters used, missiles, the price of ammunition, etc. differ greatly, the war cost will change significantly, but what is the difference in this war cost when those factors are excluded? It also seems to be effective in the sense that it shakes Russian public opinion. If the domestic economy is exhausted due to economic sanctions while spending a huge amount of war expenses per day, it is natural that criticism of the expenses caused by the war will arise. In any case, various information warfare is currently taking place.
I'm participating in the ranking.Please click and cheer for me.
Poland's supply of fighter jets is in trouble.Ukraine says it will accept neutrality.
Poland's plan to supply Soviet-made fighter jets to Ukraine seems to be in trouble.The Polish government announced on August 8 that it would hand over fighter jets to the U.S. and provide them to Ukraine via the U.S., but the U.S. expressed its intention not to accept Poland's proposal for fear of Russian opposition.
The Ukrainian Air Force announced on August 1 that it would receive 28 MiG-29s from Poland, but Poland later denied the infomation handing them over.Poland's attempt to provide Mig-29 via the U.S. due to pressure from Russia but The U.S. rejected .Romania has been threatened by Russia, saying it recognizes Ukraine's use of the airport .It is clear that Europe is still supplying weapons to Ukraine, and fighter jets are one of its weapons, but is it different to say that fighter jets or air force aid?
Ukraine asked NATO to set up a no-fly zone, but NATO refused.The establishment of a no-fly zone means NATO's deployment of fighter jets to shoot down Russian aircraft, which means NATO's participation in the war.Ukraine's demand to do something about intensifying air strikes was not met, and furthermore, it is difficult to provide fighter jets from Poland.
Zelensky's ruling party, "People's Servant," announced on August 8 if neighboring countries, including NATO and Russia, will guarantee Ukraine's security and neutrality, Ukraine will accept the order of Russian neutrality .However, it is unclear how the negotiations will proceed as Russia demands Total abolition of Ukraine's army and Ukraine refuses to recognize the independence of Donetsk and the People's Republic of Lugansk.
In conclusion, after the Crimean crisis, Ukraine's intention to join NATO is a security issue, but if NATO and Russia guarantee Ukraine's neutrality and security, there will be no need to stick to NATO membership.And this may have been something to be negotiated before the war.The only solution to the issue is to treat Ukraine as a buffer zone and maintain peacefully.But the war has already begun, and the problem is much more complicated than before.Ukraine's ruling party's intentions are premised on negotiations between NATO and Russia.
If Ukraine is guaranteed peace as a neutral region, Russia will not be adjacent to NATO and will meet Russia's original requirements.
Putin issued a special alert to the nuclear deterrent force.Putin's apparent mistake in his later years.nuclear intimidation.
Putin ordered strategic nuclear deterrent forces to be "special alert.He said "This is because Western countries have taken "unfriendly action" against Russia.
This is a far-fetched idea, and NATO countries are strongly criticizing it.Putin's previous invasion of Ukraine has been carefully calculated, and Putin has achieved his many goals successfully.In addition, Putin ordered its nuclear deterrent forces against G7 and other countries which would exclude Russia from the SWIFT and other economy .It is a special warning, it simply means that nuclear weapons should be prepared to be used at any time.
Russia has not suffered any military damage in their country.The Ukrainian army is responsible for the internal defense of Ukraine, and the death of Russian soldiers in Ukraine have been caused by Ukrainian troops in Ukraine.The order for the nuclear deterrent forces is to prepare nuclear weapons in response to economic sanctions.
This is clearly Putin's mistake.Putin's personal isolation from the international community will be more serious than Russia's isolation.Putin is rumored to be aiming for a fifth term in Russia's 2024 presidential election, but even if he becomes president, no heads of state may negotiate with Putin.
This time, it is seen as a nuclear threat to the international community, and it can be such a big mistake that doubts about Putin's personality arise.
Mr. Ruri Miura said that NATO's eastern expansion was not correct - Useless fanning - Mr. Trump would have been in harmony. Mr. Miura said that NATO's eastern expansion was incorrect.
Ruri Miura, an international political scientist, said, "It wasn't right at all" when asked "Is NATO's eastern expansion correct?" It is a view that goes against the tone of the media. In terms of content, did Russia need to provoke unnecessarily when it was not sufficiently weakened and could still lead to war as a nuclear power? Is saying. In addition, in response to the question "What if Mr. Trump was the president?", He instructed NATO not to expand eastward if he was Mr. Trump, and said that it is highly likely that he had taken Russia's request. The reason is that he is not so interested in Ukraine. At least Mr. Trump wouldn't have gone to at least the invasion of Kyiv. In other words, the United States does not have many interests in Ukraine, has weak trade relations, whould be regarded as a problem in the former Eastern Europe, and NATO does not unnecessarily stimulate it.
Japan, like the United States, has little substantial relationship with Ukraine. It is necessary to look at this problem calmly apart from Western countries. Looking at the tone of the media and the internet, this war is only talked about from a sentimental point of view. As Miura pointed out in an interview, "Wars of this scale have occurred many times around the world, but why is the Ukrainian issue the only focus? It is a war between developed countries. . "
As I have posted before, Ukraine's accession to NATO was a very risky attempt to completely siege Moscow. This would require a high degree of diplomatic reconciliation, but no attempt was made. In the opposite position, if a hostile nation deploys a missile 600 km to the capital of the United States, the United States should invade the military instantly. It is necessary to separate the argument that the war is happening now and that it must be ended as soon as possible and the argument that the cause of the war has started. However, it goes without saying that Russia's actions cannot be justified. Most importantly, the road to the end of the war will only be long if the cause of the beginning of the war is not removed.
A clever Russian strategy How many scenarios does Putin have for Ukraine?
Putin's purpose is, as he said, to the east, NATO's non-expansion.If you think about the purpose of the Russian troops stationed near the Ukrainian border, how many scenarios are there?How many scenarios did the Biden administration attempt to respond to?
The first possibility is that if Ukraine joins NATO, it will capture Kiev, Ukraine's capital.In response, NATO countries in Europe said they would not send troops to Ukraine, and Biden's administration said they would not send troops to Ukraine.Biden's tone is "all-out war," so he would not send troops.That is, Biden tried to put off the issue by saying Ukraine would not join NATO in the near future.
From Russia's point of view, this is probably an ambiguous solution.However, if NATO forces do not enter Ukraine in the near future, Russia's immediate reason for its attack on Ukraine will be weakened, while the United States will continue to shout that Russia will attack and foreign companies withdrawed from Ukraine.Economic sanctions such as withdrawal at the civilian level have already begun.Russia claims to have withdrawn some of its troops, but the United States claims Russia is increasing its forces.Is this Biden's strategy?
Putin gets only economic blow.Therefore, the second scenario was to recognize the independence of the People's Republic of Lugansk and the People's Republic of Donetsk. We decided to bring back results.Russia is strongly opposed to Ukraine's NATO membership and is negotiating with Europe and U.S, which seemed different from case of Crimea aimed at some regions.Western countries are also responding to NATO versus Russia's all-out war.The theme is to avoid all-out war.
Putin approved the independence of pro-Russian forces after the next U.S.-Russia summit was decided and before the talks.The timing was exquisite.As a result, Putin obtained two cards before the talks.Russian troops will station in Lugansk and Donetsk to pressure the West and Ukraine.Moreover, Russia would try to prevent Ukraine from entering NATO.Since the eastern half of Ukraine is inhabited by many Russians, this method can be used in the future.Did Biden get the card?I think it's the same as the beginning.
President Putin seems to have done better this time.He succeeded in achieving results, and NATO even declared that it would not enter Ukraine.
Negotiations on Ukraine broke down.Russia's goal is to neutralize and demilitarize Ukraine.NATO provides logistical support.
Negotiations on a ceasefire between Ukrainian and Russian delegations ended for five hours in Gomeri, southeastern Belarus, near the border with Ukraine.Ukraine has already notified of unconditional negotiations, and what this means is that it does not object to the recognition of independence of Lugansk and Donetsk.Russia seems to have offered conditions.
Russia's conditions are "neutralization" and "demilitarization" of Ukraine.This may seem like a peaceful settlement, but it is a completely different request."Neutralization" means Ukraine's non-NATO membership, and Ukraine's current intentions may be put aside but it would be accepted.However, "unarmed" means that there is no military, and that having an army is a legitimate right under international law included in a country's right to live, which means that it will no longer be a sovereign state.In other words, Russia has offered unacceptable conditions.As a result, the negotiations broke down and the negotiations were decided to negotiate next time.
Russia's original demand is NATO's non-expansion to the east.This has not changed since the beginning.So why can't Ukraine compromise on the terms of "neutralization" that it can accept?This also seems to mean that there will be no will of Russia to negotiat with Ukraine.Russia has taken military action against the possibility of NATO's eastern expansion to Ukraine and the deployment of NATO forces near the Russian border.In other words, it is fundamentally a matter of NATO and Russia.
NATO has consistently said that it is up to the will of the applicant countries to join NATO.In other words, NATO's passive stance is that it is the will of the applicant countries rather than the will of NATO.However, the war is continuing.Perhaps what Russia wants to negotiate is NATO troops.NATO wants further commitment to the non-expansion of the East.In this sense, Ukraine may not be Russia's negotiating partner.NATO is trying to stop the Russian military by imposing economic sanctions and arousing international public opinion.
If NATO agrees on non-expansion to the East ,and Ukraine as a neutral country, Ukraine's sovereignty and peace will be maintained, and both Russia and NATO will have important buffer states.If NATO or Russia sends troops to Ukraine, it will be a war between NATO and Russia.Then the military balance will be maintained.Indeed, for NATO, Ukraine's membership has little advantage.Therefore, Western countries immediately announced that they would not send troops to Ukraine to avoid war.
In Japanese history, there is a Tianjin Treaty signed with Qing in 1885.This means that the two sides will withdraw from the Korean Peninsula in order to ease tensions between Japan and China after the Kim Ok-kyun Gapsin Incident.In other words, the Korean Peninsula is considered a neutral military zone of military neutrality.As a result, Queen Min, who failed to suppress the Donghak Party's rebellion on the Korean Peninsula, asked Qing for reinforcements, which triggered the Japan-Qing War.Without such a blunder, Ukraine could become an independent country, and on the contrary, a stable and protected country between Russia and NATO.
Russia's request is simple and nothing has changed.NATO Western countries have become third parties to economic sanctions without participating in the war.Will NATO negotiate with Russia?
